Md. Amir Uddin Miah and another Vs. Dhaka City Corporation, VI ADC (2009) 578

Case No: Civil Review Petition No. 142 of 2008

Judge: Md. Joynul Abedin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mainul Hosein,,

Citation: VI ADC (2009) 578

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Md. Amir Uddin Miah

Respondent: Dhaka City Corporation

Subject: Review Petition,

Delivery Date: 2008-10-22

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
MM Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Abdul Matin J
 
Md. Amir Uddin Miah and another
..............................Petitioners
Vs.
Dhaka City Corporation, rep­resented by its Mayor, Nagar Bhaban, Dhaka and others
……………….....Respondents
 
Judgment
October 22, 2008.
 
It appears that the points raised by the learned Counsel were already answered in the impugned judgment. Since review does not mean rehearing of the matter we find no merit in the review petition. …… (5)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Mainul Hosein, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Subrata Chowdhury, Advocate, instructed by Chowdhury Md. Zahangir, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.4.
Not Represented-Respondent No. 1-3.
 
Civil Review Petition No. 142 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated 20.07.2008 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1187 of 2008).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Joynul Abedin J.
 
1. By this petition the petitioners seek review of the judg­ment an order dated 20.07.2008 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1187 of 2008 dismissing the petition.
 
2. The short fact is that the petitioners filed writ Petition No. 871 of 2008 chal­lenging a memo bearing No.১২০৬/কর/০৮ dated 24.01.2008 issued by the respon­dent No.3, Tax Officer, Zone-9 (Gulshan), Dhaka City Corporation, Dhaka cancelling the trade license of the petitioners on the basis of the com­plaint submitted by the respondent No.4. The petitioners as partners started hotel business in 1989 under the name and style Golden Deer guest House at House No. 6, Road No. 36, Gulshan-2, Dhaka. Subsequently, the name of the hotel was changed to 'Hotel Golden Deer Limited' and it was shifted to House No. 31/B, read no. 35/A, Gulshan-2, PS. Gulshan, Dhaka. The trade licence for running the business was obtained in the name of the petition­er No.1 as managing Director of the hotel. The petitioners took the house on rental basis from the respondent No. 4 under certain terms and conditions as stated in the agreement for running hotel business. Petitioner No.1 signed the said agreement as the Managing Director of 'Hotel Golden Deer Limited'. As per agreement, the rent of the premises was fixed at Tk. 2,50,000/- with effect from 01.05.2002 for three years subject to the condition that the period of tenancy might be extended from time to time with an enhancement of rent at the rate of 7%. In clause 13 of the agreement, it is further stipulated that both parties are empowered to ter­minate the tenancy with three months, notice upon each other. The petitioners invested about Tk.3, 00, 00,000/- for purchasing various articles for decora­tion and comfort of the foreign guests in each room. The respondent No.4 created undue pressure upon the petitioners to pay rent at an enhanced rate and as such the petitioners were compelled to serve a legal notice upon the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 on 03.05.1007 managed a letter to be issued by the RAJUK asking the petitioners to shift the business from the present premises on some false and frivolous allegations for which the petitioners filed writ peti­tion No. 5604 of 2007. The notices of the rule were duly served upon the respondents but they did not take any step. The respondent No. 4 unduly pressed upon the petitioners to give an advance rent of Tk. 6 crore and to pay rent at the rate of Tk. 8,00,000/- per month for the premises. The petitioners refused to concede to the demand and respondent No 4 applied to respondent No. 3 for cancellation of the trade licence. After receiving letter from the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 3 on 03.12.2007 issued notice to the peti­tioner No.1 to show cause as to why the trade licence of Hotel Golden Deer Limited should not be cancelled. Petitioner No.1 submitted his reply denying al the allegations made in the notice. Thereafter the respondent No.3 on 19.12.2007 issued a notice fixing 10.30 a.m. of 27.12.2007 for hearing and asked the petitioner No.1 to remain present along with the relevant papers and documents. After receiving the said notice, Hotel Golden Deer Limited filed writ petition No. 11010 of 2007 before the High Court Division challenging the notices dated 03.12.2007 and 19.12.2007 but the said writ petition was rejected as being not pressed. Thereafter the respondent No.3 by letter dated 24.01.2008 addressed to the petitioner No.1 cancelled the trade licence of the said hotel on untenable ground. Hence the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition. The High Court Division after hearing discharged the rule by the judg­ment and order dated 13.03.2008. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court Division the petitioners moved the Appellate Division in Civil petition for Leave to Appeal No.1187 of 2008. But this Court dismissed the same by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2008. Hence the present petition for review by the petitioners.
 
3. Mr. Mainul Hosein, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners sub­mits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2008 passed by the Appellate Division will affect the merit of the rule issued in writ petition No. 5604 of 2007 which is still awaiting disposal by the High Court Division causing irre­versible hardship and peril to the peti­tioners. He further submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Appellate Division failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of the trade licence cannot be used for settling dis­pute a landlord an a tenant specially so when the landlord has not cancelled the tenancy agreement of any fault of the tenant and yet that is what has been done by their Lordships of the High Court Division. He lastly submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record that the order of cancellation of the trade licence was made with an ulte­rior motive and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Dhaka City Corporation has allowed itself to be use by the landlord for protection against RAJUK's notice when he knowingly rented the premises for residential hotel purpose.
 
4. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.
 
5. It appears that the points raised by the learned Counsel were already answered in the impugned judgment. Since review does not mean rehearing of the matter we find no merit in the review petition.
 
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
 
Ed.